It is crazy watching Gun Nuts be fine with people needing a driving license, register their car and even the have to take test to drive, but that just about anybody can stroll in and buy a gun, no license, no registration, no test. It is amazingly hypocritical and the counter argument will be, "golly gee though, huk huk huk... it is a right". No it isn't. It is just what a few guys wrote down 250 years ago. Speech is a Right. Religion (believing what you want) is a Right. Reporting on things and the government is a right. Owning a weapon designed to kill people is not a Right.
I don't think we need a gun registry or gun licensing in this country. I do think that it should be illegal to sell someone a gun without doing background checks on them. Things will slip through the cracks, and guns will show up that we have no idea who sold to whom, but that's just how it is sometimes.
I do think there should be a tax on ammo. If you want to shoot it at the range you bought it at, no tax. Take it home, that should be taxed. Maybe a 50% tax.
We should also think about restricting more gun types. Currently there are restrictions on full auto and on shotgun barrel length. I think we need a few more restrictions, maybe based on reload speed and gun mass.
(12-06-2024, 11:26 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy watching Gun Nuts be fine with people needing a driving license, register their car and even the have to take test to drive, but that just about anybody can stroll in and buy a gun, no license, no registration, no test. It is amazingly hypocritical and the counter argument will be, "golly gee though, huk huk huk... it is a right". No it isn't. It is just what a few guys wrote down 250 years ago. Speech is a Right. Religion (believing what you want) is a Right. Reporting on things and the government is a right. Owning a weapon designed to kill people is not a Right.
Read the constitution (if you learned to read while you were in an indoctrination center) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand???? And the 1st 10 amendments of the constitution are called The Bill of Rights, so, in short, Gun ownership is a right...... And when the defecation contacts the rotary oscillator in this country (it's no longer an IF but a WHEN), cowards like you will be hiding behind people like me to protect your sorry [BLEEP].......
(12-07-2024, 12:14 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2024, 11:26 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy watching Gun Nuts be fine with people needing a driving license, register their car and even the have to take test to drive, but that just about anybody can stroll in and buy a gun, no license, no registration, no test. It is amazingly hypocritical and the counter argument will be, "golly gee though, huk huk huk... it is a right". No it isn't. It is just what a few guys wrote down 250 years ago. Speech is a Right. Religion (believing what you want) is a Right. Reporting on things and the government is a right. Owning a weapon designed to kill people is not a Right.
Read the constitution (if you learned to read while you were in an indoctrination center) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand???? And the 1st 10 amendments of the constitution are called The Bill of Rights, so, in short, Gun ownership is a right...... And when the defecation contacts the rotary oscillator in this country (it's no longer an IF but a WHEN), cowards like you will be hiding behind people like me to protect your sorry [BLEEP].......
The Constitution says what it says but there are some constitutional restrictions on private weapons as well. FSG believes it should not be so, but it is so.
(12-07-2024, 01:04 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]...an inconvenient truth
![[Image: 469429411-10226599009136632-6170843667741312470-n.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/RDXbgRy/469429411-10226599009136632-6170843667741312470-n.jpg)
Lol.....rifles.....
Now include handguns and shotguns.
(12-07-2024, 01:04 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]...an inconvenient truth
Nice random meaningless chart... thanks.
(12-07-2024, 12:14 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2024, 11:26 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy watching Gun Nuts be fine with people needing a driving license, register their car and even the have to take test to drive, but that just about anybody can stroll in and buy a gun, no license, no registration, no test. It is amazingly hypocritical and the counter argument will be, "golly gee though, huk huk huk... it is a right". No it isn't. It is just what a few guys wrote down 250 years ago. Speech is a Right. Religion (believing what you want) is a Right. Reporting on things and the government is a right. Owning a weapon designed to kill people is not a Right.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand????
What part of being in a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, do you not understand?
Stay away from the kids, Pete..
(12-07-2024, 10:08 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2024, 01:04 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]...an inconvenient truth
Nice random meaningless chart... thanks.
(12-07-2024, 12:14 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ] What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand????
What part of being in a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, do you not understand?
Is the Second Amendment only for militia?
A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense,
not a right of the states to maintain a militia.
(12-07-2024, 01:04 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]...an inconvenient truth
The list above shows guns are far from our largest problems. To add to this a couple ideas.
According to FBI stats 80-85% of the gun deaths are by convicted felons who should not have a gun. By enforcing this law 80-85% of the issue will be solved. When solving a problem take out the biggest slice first right?
Next, in the 20's we had the temperance movement. That led to the rise of organized crime and was repealed as the government failed to withhold alcohol from the public. Next came the war on drugs. We all know how that came out. It suffered the same fate as prohibition. What we should learn is the government cannot keep law breaker (or felons evidently) from breaking the law. What will be accomplished by removing guns? I can see a couple results.
Honest law abiding people will no longer have guns, they will be defenseless against the criminals who will have them.
The largest portion of the problem will not be addressed - 85% (they already have a law for this, no new law is required)
Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state and total local control.
The writers of the Constitution got it right.
(12-06-2024, 11:26 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy watching Gun Nuts be fine with people needing a driving license, register their car and even the have to take test to drive, but that just about anybody can stroll in and buy a gun, no license, no registration, no test. It is amazingly hypocritical and the counter argument will be, "golly gee though, huk huk huk... it is a right". No it isn't. It is just what a few guys wrote down 250 years ago. Speech is a Right. Religion (believing what you want) is a Right. Reporting on things and the government is a right. Owning a weapon designed to kill people is not a Right.
I adamantly oppose driving licenses, car registrations, or any thing else of that nature.
If you really believe you can walk into a store and walk out with a gun, or that the gun you buy won't in fact be registered then you're an ignoramus.
Our Rights actually exists outside of the Constitution, the document merely delineates that the federal government may not oppress them. That means that the right to self defense and ownership of the means to do so are in fact....rights, regardless of what any government might say. They may repress but they do not revoke.
In short, you wrote 3 lines of complete and utter bull [BLEEP].
I give you an F- for knowledge and a zero for effort.
(12-07-2024, 12:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think we need a gun registry or gun licensing in this country. I do think that it should be illegal to sell someone a gun without doing background checks on them. Things will slip through the cracks, and guns will show up that we have no idea who sold to whom, but that's just how it is sometimes.
I do think there should be a tax on ammo. If you want to shoot it at the range you bought it at, no tax. Take it home, that should be taxed. Maybe a 50% tax.
We should also think about restricting more gun types. Currently there are restrictions on full auto and on shotgun barrel length. I think we need a few more restrictions, maybe based on reload speed and gun mass.
[BLEEP] outta here wiht that nonsense. When you buy a gun you fill out forms, supply ID, and they record both your ID and the gun's serial number. They are de facto registered. It's why when you sell a gun to someone privately you damn well better collect that same info, because if that gun shows up in a crime you then the cops are coming to you to find out why.
And no, the People should have access to the same weapons as the military, so we need looser or no restrictions, not more.
(12-07-2024, 10:42 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2024, 10:08 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]Nice random meaningless chart... thanks.
What part of being in a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, do you not understand?
Is the Second Amendment only for militia?
Except for military and police, yes.
Quote:A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.
The Court was wrong. The Court is fallible as we have seen them reverse earlier decisions.
(12-07-2024, 12:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think we need a gun registry or gun licensing in this country. I do think that it should be illegal to sell someone a gun without doing background checks on them. Things will slip through the cracks, and guns will show up that we have no idea who sold to whom, but that's just how it is sometimes.
I do think there should be a tax on ammo. If you want to shoot it at the range you bought it at, no tax. Take it home, that should be taxed. Maybe a 50% tax.
We should also think about restricting more gun types. Currently there are restrictions on full auto and on shotgun barrel length. I think we need a few more restrictions, maybe based on reload speed and gun mass.
Just an FYI for you, there already is a tax on all guns & ammo.
https://www.guns.com/news/2024/03/25/gun...on-efforts
(12-06-2024, 11:26 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy watching Gun Nuts be fine with people needing a driving license, register their car and even the have to take test to drive, but that just about anybody can stroll in and buy a gun, no license, no registration, no test. It is amazingly hypocritical and the counter argument will be, "golly gee though, huk huk huk... it is a right". No it isn't. It is just what a few guys wrote down 250 years ago. Speech is a Right. Religion (believing what you want) is a Right. Reporting on things and the government is a right. Owning a weapon designed to kill people is not a Right.
Cool story, bro.
You are right though, they would be hypocrites if that is their argument. Just as you would be a hypocrite for believing what you wrote is a serious argument made in good faith. So tell me, are you an honest hypocrite or a full of [BLEEP], attention seeking, piece of [BLEEP] coward?
(12-07-2024, 05:39 PM)Thewitnessofsolinvictus Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2024, 11:26 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy watching Gun Nuts be fine with people needing a driving license, register their car and even the have to take test to drive, but that just about anybody can stroll in and buy a gun, no license, no registration, no test. It is amazingly hypocritical and the counter argument will be, "golly gee though, huk huk huk... it is a right". No it isn't. It is just what a few guys wrote down 250 years ago. Speech is a Right. Religion (believing what you want) is a Right. Reporting on things and the government is a right. Owning a weapon designed to kill people is not a Right.
Cool story, bro.
You are right though, they would be hypocrites if that is their argument. Just as you would be a hypocrite for believing what you wrote is a serious argument made in good faith. So tell me, are you an honest hypocrite or a full of [BLEEP], attention seeking, piece of [BLEEP] coward?
That's a False Choice, he could also be a Dishonest Hypocrite as well.
(12-07-2024, 03:24 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2024, 12:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think we need a gun registry or gun licensing in this country. I do think that it should be illegal to sell someone a gun without doing background checks on them. Things will slip through the cracks, and guns will show up that we have no idea who sold to whom, but that's just how it is sometimes.
I do think there should be a tax on ammo. If you want to shoot it at the range you bought it at, no tax. Take it home, that should be taxed. Maybe a 50% tax.
We should also think about restricting more gun types. Currently there are restrictions on full auto and on shotgun barrel length. I think we need a few more restrictions, maybe based on reload speed and gun mass.
Just an FYI for you, there already is a tax on all guns & ammo.
https://www.guns.com/news/2024/03/25/gun...on-efforts
That's a 10% tax meant to raise revenue for conservation.
I'm talking a larger tax, just on ammo, that leaves the range, to maybe deter stockpiling and mass shootings. It's the Chris Rock idea.
There's a lot of willful ignorance going on here. If you don't know what the heck you're talking about you should just say nothing. Spouting off stuff just to get a rise out of people makes only you look stupid, not the rest of us.
(12-07-2024, 05:47 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2024, 05:39 PM)Thewitnessofsolinvictus Wrote: [ -> ]Cool story, bro.
You are right though, they would be hypocrites if that is their argument. Just as you would be a hypocrite for believing what you wrote is a serious argument made in good faith. So tell me, are you an honest hypocrite or a full of [BLEEP], attention seeking, piece of [BLEEP] coward?
That's a False Choice, he could also be a Dishonest Hypocrite as well.
Doesn't calling him full of [BLEEP] imply he's a dishonest hypocrite? Either way, the cowards's silence gives the answer
I find it odd timing he starts posting and then the cross dresser finds his way back.